Suppose that democracies produce more wealth than voluntarist societies by forcing people to do productive things they would otherwise irrationally refuse to do (or refuse due to the logic of public goods or some such).

Does it then follow that voluntarist societies take money away from people which they would otherwise have, and is thus forces them to be poorer by not allowing them to do what would make them richest?

Let me restate the problem.

Consider a business venture to produce widgets. Jack has the idea of how to do it, and it will make billions of dollars. He just needs a bit of capital to get started, so he asks Sue for a loan. Sue refuses.

In a voluntarist society, trades only take place when all parties wish them to. Jack will have to persuade someone to help with his widgets, or provide his own starting capital. He might fail to do those things and remain poor even if his widget idea is excellent.

Contrariwise, in the sort of society you advocate, Sue could be forced (by majority vote, or by laws of officials already elected by vote) to loan money to Jack. This, you say, saves Jack from being forced to be poor, and forced not to produce widgets.

Sue can be forced to give the loan, which she does not want, or Jack can be forced not to have a loan, which he does not want. There is symmetry.

So, there is no such thing as a way to proceed in which no one is forced. There is no such thing as a voluntary society. There is only such thing as a society which is in denial about its use of force.

But there's more. Sue would end up with more money if she gave the loan, so she really has nothing to lose, and is therefore acting perversely. Her refusal to help both of them is actually the most violent and hateful act being considered, and is therefore the one that should not be allowed.

Is that, roughly, what you believe?

-- Elliot Temple
curicuri.us
Dialogs